Aikido yardstick (not expecting it to be used gently)

[realjanuary]

This may sound noobish and I know that there are threads about this as well here on Bullshido, but couldn't it be argued that the Tomiki folks have already spent a fair amount of time working on the whole "yardstick for aikido" thing with their aikido randori competitions and stuff? I never had the chance to try Tomiki out, but would have if there was a gym in my area.

Although the vids I've seen here on Bullshido look kind of like crappier Judo (to me, someone who practices neither Judo nor Tomiki Aikido).

^this

Another example is Chris Hein's pressure testing, which we've seen here before too.

[It is Fake]

Realize it is a sub/secondary system, at this point, and add a proven striking system:
Muay Thai
Boxing
MMA combined Striking

Yeah, I get that. But some arts just aren't intended to be all encompassing. A lot of BJJ schools don't teach responses to striking. Doesn't make the art bad. Just bad at that.

This is a leap because it has nothing to do with all encompassing. Boxing doesn't teach full takeodwn defense, but it does teach you how to strike when back pedaling, angles, and different ranges. Same with Muay Thai.

Saying " the ground" is misleading. BJJ teaches how to attack a specific range from varying positions. Many, not all, Aikido does not. Also, as with other arts, you have to lose the ego and LEARN how to spar and train alive. If you've spent 20 years doing a dead art, as an instructor, you can't suddenly "spar effectively."

[Goju - Joe]

*I'm going to spew some bs cliches here*

That's cool, quality control is great. Before we do it we need to know what we're testing and how to test it.

game 1
uke can do anything to resist the technique
tori must do the pre-chosen technique

This is what I call "square-peg-in-round-hole" training. It's a useful training tool.

game 2
Uke must try to land one pre-determined strike or maintain a specified hold
tori can do any technique, including striking

I call this "uke can't win" it's a common scene in dojo training. (instructors correct us for "tanking" or not attacking with commitment and then change the technique when we "block the technique"). *insert apologist rationale here*

The skill of quality control is not in the results we find, but in how we design the game and interpret the results. The two games described are extremes and not fair tests.

A lot of aikido training uses somewhat contrived counter-for-counter scenarios. For example, in many techniques a strike is included early on, which uke counters. If the strike is omitted, or uke's counter is different to kihon waza, kihon waza stops making sense. Playing nice, while staying honest, with striking is more difficult than with grappling. It's not impossible, it just has it's own challenges.

Every type of training, if used excessively, creates abberations.

PS
I just started reading this article while googling stuff for here. I think it's relevant.

PPS
I recognise my bias as an aikido apologist.

The problem with this is you're stil using the Uke Torri dichotmey and when it comes to effective self defense it is a false one.

In fact drilling it into the minds of Aikidoka can have the reverse effect when making Aikido street effective.

My answer is train Aikido because you enjoy it and train other stuff to fill in the holes if you are concerned about them.

[realjanuary]

The problem with this is you're stil using the Uke Torri dichotmey and when it comes to effective self defense it is a false one.

In fact drilling it into the minds of Aikidoka can have the reverse effect when making Aikido street effective.

My answer is train Aikido because you enjoy it and train other stuff to fill in the holes if you are concerned about them.

I dig what you're saying, especially the last bit.

Never using an uke/tori model has it's own problems. There has to be a balance. Aikido generally uses uke/tori too much*, and even then we often us it ineffectively (e.g. uke "attacking" but never experiencing what it's like for their attack to be successful). It's too easy to lose the feedback in normal aikido training.
That doesn't mean that asymmetric drills (e.g. A tries to maintain mount, B tries to sweep or recover guard) are all useless. We just need to work them better to keep the feedback and balance them with symmetric drills (e.g. judo randori).
I've another rant I'll post later about this.

From the aikido camp, the aliveness docterine often sounds like "all sparring, all the time." Which sounds odd, how will you ever learn a new skills if you're always in the trenches?

*read: all the time, unless you're the instructor. It's ok for the instructor to counter a technique when they're uke, but if you do it as a junior you're in for a beating. I have a problem with this.

[AikiOK]

*read: all the time, unless you're the instructor. It's ok for the instructor to counter a technique when they're uke, but if you do it as a junior you're in for a beating. I have a problem with this.

If I counter, since I do almost all of the attacking, it is becuause the student has developed the technique to the point that this "opening" needs to be looked at and "closed" to better complete the technique. Counters from students are invaluable in pointing out what I am leaving open in the same manner and may need to look at in my own technique... In MY aikido class... YMMV

[Hanniballistic]

This may sound noobish and I know that there are threads about this as well here on Bullshido, but couldn't it be argued that the Tomiki folks have already spent a fair amount of time working on the whole "yardstick for aikido" thing with their aikido randori competitions and stuff? I never had the chance to try Tomiki out, but would have if there was a gym in my area.

Although the vids I've seen here on Bullshido look kind of like crappier Judo (to me, someone who practices neither Judo nor Tomiki Aikido).

You are not alone in thinking that. A lot of the Aikido I see at the Tomiki tournaments does indeed look like poor Judo. Even worse the knife defences are so bad that any individual would in all likelihood have died about 35 times before eve landing a "successful" defence



Props for testing their art in a non-compliant manner, but the lesson I would have taken away is "holy **** this stuff doesn't actually work so good"

[realjanuary]

If I counter, since I do almost all of the attacking, it is becuause the student has developed the technique to the point that this "opening" needs to be looked at and "closed" to better complete the technique. Counters from students are invaluable in pointing out what I am leaving open in the same manner and may need to look at in my own technique... In MY aikido class... YMMV

Cool, finding the balance for this is something I've been thinking about recently. I recall Ellis Amdur writing somewhere that for him the balance in how often to counter the student was about once per partner rotation / technique rotation (but still look for the counter all the time).
When ego is involved (and styles like aikido let certain types of ego grow) we have to check ourselves in how much we are "upping the game because the student can take it" and just trying to prove that we, as the instructor, are better than the student.
Stimulus of reward or punishment is most effective when closely assoctiated with the behaviour and everything we feed each other is a stimulus.

Two examples of "upping the game" I've seen that didn't sit well with me:
Uke being told to not "tank" and use more extension, being hit when they left the opening. That part was fine, but when they improved their extension and accidently walked through the hole in the technique they got slammed for the next four throws, being told "if you do that I'll just run the kata."
The second was striking sparring. The coach, how outweighted the student, put down their guard and invited a punch. When the student hit, and was rewarded by being knocked out. The coach's rationale was "I'll hit them as hard as they hit me, I let them decide the intensity."

Sorry for using your thread to rant in. I'll try to stay more on topic in future.

[Permalost]

From the aikido camp, the aliveness docterine often sounds like "all sparring, all the time." Which sounds odd, how will you ever learn a new skills if you're always in the trenches?

This is not exactly true. Even in the chess analogy, one needs to "learn how the pieces move" before playing the game, and fighting can be quite a complex game indeed. Drills can be devised that incorporate aliveness without being anything-goes hard sparring, and these drills could still fall under the "learn how the pieces move" stage.

[It is Fake]

Props for testing their art in a non-compliant manner, but the lesson I would have taken away is "holy **** this stuff doesn't actually work so good"

Which goes back to what you and I said. You either get a trainer that understand aliveness or you trains something else to fill the gaps.

Both examples involve training with someone experienced in alive training.

Cool, finding the balance for this is something I've been thinking about recently. I recall Ellis Amdur writing somewhere that for him the balance in how often to counter the student was about once per partner rotation / technique rotation (but still look for the counter all the time).
When ego is involved (and styles like aikido let certain types of ego grow) we have to check ourselves in how much we are "upping the game because the student can take it" and just trying to prove that we, as the instructor, are better than the student.
Stimulus of reward or punishment is most effective when closely assoctiated with the behaviour and everything we feed each other is a stimulus.

Two examples of "upping the game" I've seen that didn't sit well with me:
Uke being told to not "tank" and use more extension, being hit when they left the opening. That part was fine, but when they improved their extension and accidently walked through the hole in the technique they got slammed for the next four throws, being told "if you do that I'll just run the kata."
The second was striking sparring. The coach, how outweighted the student, put down their guard and invited a punch. When the student hit, and was rewarded by being knocked out. The coach's rationale was "I'll hit them as hard as they hit me, I let them decide the intensity."

Sorry for using your thread to rant in. I'll try to stay more on topic in future.

You REALLY need to let this go. You went to a poor gym and now you've apparently over-corrected to the other extreme. I'm not belittling your experince , but to think gyms are all spar spar spar spar is naive.

A good gym uses both "alive" and "dead" training effectively.

[realjanuary]

This is not exactly true. Even in the chess analogy, one needs to "learn how the pieces move" before playing the game, and fighting can be quite a complex game indeed. Drills can be devised that incorporate aliveness without being anything-goes hard sparring, and these drills could still fall under the "learn how the pieces move" stage.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's the impression I get from some of my peers where ever the subject of other training methods comes up.
I once had someone ask me "but what's the point of it" when discussing judo. My reply was along the line of "to train sincerely."

The "it's just figthing" view of aliveness is not mine, I'm just trying to give them a mouth piece here (why? I don't really know, maybe to put it down before it's brought up by someone else).